Introduction

Historiographical representations of Edward II are in many ways inextricable from those of his significant favourites, Piers Gaveston and the two Hugh Despensers, and the dynamics of their relationships. Many writers demonstrate fundamental aspects of Edward's personality and reign through portraying interactions with his favourites, or describing the favourites themselves. Persistent details or anecdotes came to stand, metonymically, for a particular issue: for example, a collection of details clustered around Edward's coronation demonstrate Gaveston's pride (through his ostentatious dress), his social status (through condemnation of Edward's choice to let him, rather than another noble, carry the crown of St Edward during the ceremony), and Edward's excessive love for him (through claims that he neglected his wife for Gaveston during the feast). As such, Edward's relationships with his favourites were in part presented as transgressive because those favourites had qualities that made them unsuitable companions. Although more recent scholarship has demonstrated that Gaveston, at least, made some genuine political contributions, medieval and early modern writers almost universally condemned Edward for his politically unwise choice of advisors: as ‘mirrors for princes’ consistently advised, older and more experienced counsellors were preferable to young favourites, who were seen as frivolous and foolish.

Yet Gaveston and the Despensers were not portrayed as wholly undesirable comrades. On the contrary, many writers stressed that they were attractive, if unwise, choices for Edward, with several emphasising their almost irresistible sexual allure. Around this tension – the sense that Edward's favourites were unsuitable companions, but very attractive choices – a profound ambivalence arose concerning the extent of Edward's agency and culpability in his relationships with them.